Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

Home

Search Jobs

Support Staff

Faculty & Academic Staff

Retirees

Students

On-Call & Temporary

Forms

Resources & Links

Follow MSUHR on:

MSU Human Resources is Certified Green

Jobs News EBS Support Site EBS Portal Login HR Directory Search:

MSU Human Resources >> Promotion >> Facacadstaff >> Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotionand Tenure Review

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion andTenure Review

Overview of the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure ProcessCriteria and StandardsTime Table for 2011-12 Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure ActionsRecommendation for Reappointment, Promotion or Tenure Action FormAnnual ReviewPeer Review/College-Level Committee ReviewJoint AppointmentExternal Letters of ReferenceConfidentiality of Letters of ReferenceUniversity-Level ReviewEarly Promotion/TenureVisa Status/Foreign NationalsStopping the Tenure Clock/Extension of the Probationary AppointmentDelay in Reappointment DecisionEffective DatesPromotional/Tenure Base Salary IncreasesNegative DecisionsSurvive and Thrive in the MSU Tenure System WorkshopData - 5-Year Summary of Promotion and Tenure Actions University-wideTenure/Promotion Recognition DinnersPost-Tenure ReviewUniversity-Level Policies/Forms Relevant to the Reappointment,Promotion and Tenure Process (web links)

Overview of the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Process 1

MSU has a multi-level review process for reappointment, promotion and tenure(RPT) decisions. Recommendations for reappointment, promotion and tenure aremade in the department according to unit, college and university bylaws, policiesand procedures. Recommendations that do not involve the award of tenure arereviewed successively by the dean, the provost and the president, who makesthe final decision. Recommendations that involve the award of tenure arereviewed successively by the dean, the provost, and the president, who makesthe final recommendation to the Board of Trustees for action.

The RPT process includes the following steps:

1. Faculty member and department chairperson/school director completetheir respective parts of the Recommendation for Reappointment,Promotion or Tenure Action form.

2. External peer evaluation (letters of reference), if required by unitprocedures.

3. Faculty member has an opportunity to confer with the department/schoolpeer review group before a decision is made.

4. Department/school peer review group provides advice to thechairperson/director regarding reappointment, promotion and tenuredecisions.

5. Department chairperson/school director conducts an independentevaluation, taking into consideration peer evaluation, and forwards arecommendation to the dean.

6. College-level reappointment, promotion and tenure committee providesadvice to the dean about department/school recommendations forreappointment, promotion and tenure.

7. Dean independently reviews each recommendation for reappointment,promotion and tenure and forwards a recommendation to the provost.

8. The Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Academic Human

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

Resources and the Senior Associate Provost consult with the provost onthe dean's recommendations.

9. The Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for Academic HumanResources, the Senior Associate Provost, and the Vice President forResearch and Graduate Studies jointly review each recommendation withthe applicable dean and approve/disapprove the recommendation onbehalf of the Office of the Provost. Approved actions that do not involvean award of tenure are forwarded to the president for final action.

10. Board of Trustees takes action on recommendations involving the awardof tenure.

The RPT process is initiated by the provost each year in early November with adistribution of materials to be used for that year's review cycle, including a list offaculty for whom tenure action is required.

Criteria and Standards

Decisions to promote and tenure faculty members are the most important madeby the University, for they will determine MSU's reputation and prominence formany years to come. Departments, schools and colleges are expected to applyrigorous standards and to refrain from doubtful recommendations ofreappointment, tenure or promotion.

Departments, schools and colleges are required to base decisions aboutreappointment, promotion and tenure on criteria and procedures that are clearlyformulated, objective, relevant, and made known to all faculty members. Theseprocedures are also required to include a means by which a probationary tenuresystem faculty member is evaluated and informed annually of his/her progress.

Faculty are reviewed according to the criteria and standards indepartment/school bylaws or other relevant documents, college bylaws or otherrelevant documents (if any), and the University's statement on "Appointment,Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Recommendations." It is critical thatfaculty learn about the standards and criteria in theirdepartment/school and/or college. The department chairperson/schooldirector should provide this information upon initial appointment in the tenuresystem or as soon as possible thereafter.

The University's statement requires that achievement and performance levelsmust be competitive with faculties of leading research-intensive, land grantuniversities of international scope. Expectations of excellence are embodied inthe following standards for reappointment, promotion and tenure:

1. Reappointment with award of tenure: Each tenure recommendationshould be based on a clear record of sustained, outstandingachievements in education and scholarship across the mission, consistentwith performance levels expected at peer universities.

a. For the faculty member appointed initially as associate professor on aprobationary basis in the tenure system who has established such arecord, the tenure recommendation is effective upon reappointment afterone probationary appointment period.

2. A recommendation for promotion from assistant professor to associateprofessor in the tenure system (with tenure) should be based on severalyears of sustained, outstanding achievements in education andscholarship across the mission, consistent with performance levelsexpected for promotion to associate professor at peer universities. Areasonably long period in rank before promotion is usually necessary toprovide a basis in actual performance for predicting capacity to becomean expert of national stature and long-term, high-quality professionalachievement.

A recommendation for promotion from associate professor to professor inthe tenure system should be based on several years of sustained,outstanding achievements in education and scholarship across themission, consistent with performance levels expected at peer universities. A reasonably long period in rank before promotion is usually necessary toprovide a basis in actual performance to permit endorsement of theindividual as an expert of national stature and to predict continuous, long-term, high-quality professional achievement.

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

Recommendations for reappointment, promotion or tenure are based upon afaculty member's scholarly contributions. In particular, assessment of facultyperformance should recognize the importance of both teaching and researchand their extension beyond the borders of the campus as part of the outreachdimension, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the facultymember and the missions of the unit.

Time Table for 2011-12 Reappointment, Promotion and TenureActions

This is the University schedule; departments/schools and colleges may haveinternal due dates.

On or Before

August 5, 2011

Office of the Provost sends advance copy of Timetableand list of faculty for whom tenure action is required, i.e.,faculty whose probationary appointment ends on August 15,2013.

November 10, 2011

Office of the Provost distributes materials electronically toinitiate tenure system reappointment and promotionrecommendations, including a list of faculty members forwhom reappointment recommendations are required.

Date to bedetermined

Chairpersons and directors inform individual facultymembers in a timely manner when their completed FormD "Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion orTenure Action" and supporting materials have beenforwarded to the dean.

February 29, 2012

The following forms are sent from the Dean through the webapplication to Academic Human Resources:

Form A: "Tenure System Reappointment

Recommendations."

Form B: "Promotion List."

Form C: "Documentation of Annual, Written, Tenure

System Faculty Review."

Form D: "Recommendation for Reappointment,

Promotion or Tenure Action" and an

updated curriculum vitae for each

faculty member listed on Form A and Form B

Deans request chairpersons and directors to informindividual faculty in a timely manner of whether or not thedean has approved the department's recommended actionand that the dean has forwarded a completed"Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion, or TenureAction" form to the provost. Even if the dean does notapprove the department's recommended action, all reviewmaterials in support of such an action will be made availablefor review by the provost and her/his staff.

Mar 12-April 18,2012

Deans' conferences with the Associate Provost/AssociateVice President for Academic Human Resources, SeniorAssociate Provost and the Vice President for Research andGraduate Studies to review individual recommendations

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

May 2, 2012 Provost notifies deans of recommendations accepted forrecommendation to the president and the Board of Trustees.

May 3-9, 2012 Deans notify chairpersons and directors, who notify facultymembers, of actions taken by the Office of the Provost andthe president on recommendations not involving the awardof tenure.

May 31, 2012 Final lists of reappointments and promotions involving theaward of tenure are prepared and forwarded by the Office ofthe Provost for recommendation to the president and for theagenda for the Board of Trustees.

June 22, 2012 Meeting of the Board of Trustees.

June 25, 2012

Notification to deans of final approval for actions involvingthe award of tenure; deans notify chairpersons anddirectors, who notify faculty members.

October 15, 2012 Delayed actions due.

Date to bedetermined

Those with delayed reappointment, promotion, and/or tenureactions should be informed as soon as possible followingfinal action by the president or Board of Trustees.

December 14, 2012 Deadline for notification to faculty who are not reappointed.

Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion or Tenure ActionForm

This (required) form, referred to as Form D, outlines many of the activities thatare relevant to decisions on promotion, tenure and reappointment. It providesthe opportunity to document, provide evidence for and assess faculty scholarshipin the functional areas of instruction, research and creative endeavors, andservice within the academic and broader community, as well as in cross-missioninitiatives.

Sections I, II and III of Form D are summary evaluations completed by thechairperson, director and/or dean. The following materials are completed andsubmitted by the faculty member:

1. Evidence of scholarly activities as requested in Section IV2. A reflective essay about accomplishments over the reporting period (5

page maximum)3. A curriculum vitae as a more complete listing of scholarly activities and

works4. Other evidence as required by the unit (such as letters from reviewers) or

desired by the faculty member

Annual Review

All tenure system faculty must be evaluated and informed annually, in writing,about their progress. The Faculty Review policy provides principles andguidelines for implementing these reviews.

Peer Review/College-Level Committee Review

Unit Level

Each department and school is required to establish procedures so that itsfaculty can provide advice to the chairperson/director regarding recommendationsfor reappointment, promotion and tenure. University guidelines for thecomposition of peer review committees are included in the statement on Peer

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

Review Committee Composition and External Evaluations.

College Level

Each departmentally organized college is required to establish a college-levelreappointment, promotion and tenure committee that is charged to provide adviceto the dean about department/school recommendations for reappointment,promotion and tenure. College-level committees are required to incorporate aset of principles that are included in the statement on College-LevelReappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committees.

Joint Appointment

Only the primary unit will make a recommendation for reappointment, promotionor tenure for a faculty member with a joint appointment. However, thechairperson/director of the primary unit is obligated to consult with thechairperson/director of all joint units prior to submitting a recommendation.

External Letters of Reference

External letters of reference are required for all reviews of tenure system facultyinvolving the granting of tenure or promotion. External letters of reference arerequired in order to ensure that individuals recommended have an achievementand performance level that is comparable with faculties of peer institutions. Thestatement on External Letters of Reference provides principles and proceduresthat must be applied uniformly to all faculty in the unit for soliciting externalletters of reference.

Confidentiality of Letters of Reference

Letters of reference, as part of an official review file, are held in confidence andwill not be disclosed to a faculty member under consideration or to the publicexcept as required by law or University policy. In all such instances, theinformation made available will be provided in a form that seeks to protect theidentity, privacy, and confidentiality of the evaluator.

University-level Review

All recommendations for reappointment, promotion and tenure are jointlyreviewed by the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for AcademicHuman Resources, the Senior Associate Provost, the Vice President forResearch and Graduate Studies, and the applicable dean. In addition toreviewing recommendations against the standards and criteria of thedepartment/school and/or college and the University, the Associate Provost,Senior Associate Provost and the Vice President assess the candidate'sindependent role in research and scholarship and the commitment to seekexternal funding, as appropriate to the discipline and assignment of the facultymember.

Additionally, the Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for AcademicHuman Resources and the Senior Associate Provost consult with the provost onthe deans' recommendations.

Early Promotion/Tenure

A promotion or tenure action is not considered "early" if justified by a record ofperformance at another university or during a fixed term appointment at MSU thatis required by immigration regulations or other relevant reason, provided theperformance meets MSU standards. Early promotion/tenure is based on anexceptional record of accomplishments at MSU that is based ondepartment/school/college and University criteria. Early promotion/tenure isreserved for extraordinary cases.

Visa Status/Foreign Nationals

Foreign nationals (those holding non-immigrant status) may be appointed withinthe tenure system, but may not be awarded tenure unless they have acquiredpermanent resident status or complete a Tenure Policy Exemption Agreement.

Alternatively, an extension of the probationary appointment is automatic if atenure decision is required before permanent resident status is obtained and the

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

candidate has been recommended for tenure.

Stopping the Tenure Clock/Extension of the ProbationaryAppointment

Automatic

The tenure system probationary appointment is extended automatically for oneyear for the following reasons:

1. Leaves of absence with or without pay that are six to twelve months.2. Changes in appointment to 50% time or less for one year.3. Upon request from a faculty member on approved leave of absence (paid

or unpaid) for twelve weeks or longer for reasons related to the birth oradoption of a child. Automatic extensions for this reason are limited totwo separate one-year extensions.

4. Immigration/visa status that does not permit the award of tenure forcandidates who have been recommended for tenure.

5. An extension recommended as an outcome of a hearing and/or appealconducted pursuant to the Faculty Grievance Policy.

Requests

Extension of the probationary appointment may be requested from the UniversityCommittee on Faculty Tenure for reasons related to childbirth, adoption, the careof an ill and/or disabled child, spouse, or parent; personal illness, to receiveprestigious awards, fellowships, and/or special assignment opportunities, or othersuch serious constraints.

The procedure for requesting an extension of the probationary tenure systemappointment is included in the statement on Implementation Practices (Stoppingthe Tenure Clock).

Delay in Reappointment Decision

On an individual case basis, there may be justification to delay the finalreappointment, promotion, or tenure decision until the fall (final recommendationsare due on or before October 15). Upon the request of or after consultation withthe faculty member, the department/school chairperson/director and dean mayconcur that another review will be held early in the fall for the purpose ofreviewing additional information and making a final recommendation. Therequest for a delay must be approved by the Associate Provost and AssociateVice President for Academic Human Resources.

Effective Dates

The effective date for reappointment with tenure is the first of the monthfollowing final approval by the Board of Trustees. The effective date forreappointment without tenure is August 16 of the year following therecommendation, e.g., for recommendations made in April 2006, the effectivedate is August 16, 2007.

The effective date for promotion with or without the award of tenure is the first ofthe month following final approval by the Board of Trustees.

The effective date for non-reappointment is August 15 of the year following therecommendation, e.g., for recommendations made in April 2006, the effectivedate is August 15, 2007.

Promotional/Tenure Base Salary Increases

Central support for promotional increments for tenure system faculty is providedat $2,000 per promotion from assistant to associate professor and at $2,500 perpromotion from associate to professor. For those appointed at the associateprofessor rank but without tenure, $2,000 will be provided upon receipt oftenure. If unit promotional policy exceeds the above funding, units areresponsible for the additional amount. Promotion/tenure salary increases areeffective with the general increase, normally October 1, and are in addition to theannual merit increase.

Negative Decisions

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

The decision not to reappoint a non-tenured faculty member does notnecessarily imply that the faculty member has failed to meet the standards of theUniversity with respect to academic competence and/or professional integrity. This decision may be contingent, wholly or in part, upon the availability of salaryfunds and/or departmental needs.

A faculty member who is not recommended for reappointment must be notified inwriting by the chairperson/director and/or dean as soon as possible and no laterthan December 15 preceding the expiration of the appointment. Upon writtenrequest of the faculty member, the administrator of the basic administrative unitmaking the decision must transmit in writing the reasons for the decision.

Appeal Procedures

The administrative review procedure is an informal process providing anavenue for faculty/ academic staff to request an independent assessment fromtheir department chairperson/school director, dean, and Office of the Provost onpersonnel matters such as salary status, reappointment, promotion and tenure.

If a non-tenured faculty member believes that the decision not to reappoint wasmade in a manner that is at variance with the established evaluation procedures,he/she may, following efforts to reconcile the differences at the level of the basicadministrative unit and the dean of the college, initiate an appeal in accordancewith the Faculty Grievance Policy. The time frame for initiating agrievance begins upon receipt of notification of the negative decision from thedean or department chairperson/school director.

Survive and Thrive in the MSU Tenure System Workshop

The Office of Faculty and Organizational Development in the Office of theProvost sponsors this workshop each fall. This workshop is for probationarytenure system faculty to provide assistance in functioning successfully within thetenure system at MSU.

The workshop has the following objectives:

1. To expand faculty members' understanding of key concepts, topics andissues within their department and about University reappointment,promotion and tenure procedures

2. To discuss approaches to documentation and record keeping forreappointment, promotion and tenure purposes

3. To provide practical information on making choices, balancing conflictingdemands, managing departmental politics

4. To provide an opportunity for communication and problem-solving amongfaculty and academic administrators

Data - 5-year Summary of Promotion and Tenure ActionsUniversity-wide

Over the five reappointment cycles from 2006 through 2010, there have been 22associate professors reappointed with tenure; 298 assistant professorsreappointed for a second three-year probationary appointment; 213 promotionsto associate professor; 164 promotions to professor; and 35 individuals notreappointed. Additionally, extensions of the probationary appointment wereapproved for 6 associate professors and 27 assistant professors.

Generally, at Michigan State, the tenure rate for starting cohorts is about 70%,i.e., faculty members who have resigned or are no longer appointed in the tenuresystem are included in the base calculation. The tenure rate is approximately90% for faculty who are reviewed in a given year.

Tenure/Promotion Recognition Dinners

Each fall the Office of the Provost hosts a recognition dinner ceremony in honorof faculty members promoted to the rank of professor and for those awardedtenure.

Post-Tenure Review

Post-tenure review is implemented through several existing policies and

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Review

http://www.hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm[4/11/2012 10:40:21 AM]

procedures (contained in the Faculty Handbook), including a clarifyinginterpretation by the University Committee on Faculty Tenure on the meaning ofthe term "incompetence" in the disciplinary and dismissal policies. Performanceis monitored through the use of annual written performance evaluations asrequired by the policy on "Faculty Review." Work performance, as determined insuch reviews, is to be reflected in annual merit salary adjustments and as abasis for advice and suggestions for improvement. Although not triggered by afixed number of years of low performance, discipline in a variety of forms may beinvoked under the "Policy and Procedure for Implementing Disciplinary Actionwhere Dismissal is Not Sought." In more serious cases, the "Dismissal ofTenured Faculty for Cause Procedure" can be invoked.

University-level policies/forms relevant to the reappointment,promotion and tenure process

Administrative ReviewAppointment, Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion RecommendationsCollege-Level Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committees Conflict of Interest in EmploymentDisciplinary Action Where Dismissal is Not Sought, Policy and Procedurefor ImplementingDismissal of Tenured Faculty for CauseExternal Letters of ReferenceFaculty Career Advancement and Professional Development: A SpecialAffirmative Action ResponsibilityFaculty Grievance PolicyFaculty ReviewGranting TenureImplementation Practices (Stopping the Tenure Clock)"Incompetence," Definition of the Term by the University Committee onFaculty TenureNon-ReappointmentNon-Tenured Faculty in the Tenure SystemOperating Principles of the Tenure System Peer Review Committee Composition Post-Tenure Review Promotion of Tenured Faculty Recommendation for Reappointment, Promotion or Tenure Action Form Reference Letters for Reappointment, Promotion and TenureRecommendations, Confidentiality of Salary Adjustment Guidelines, Academic Survive and Thrive Workshop Tenure Action and Promotion

Footnote:

1 Web links to all relevant policy statements and forms are listed at the end ofthis document.

Back

© 2012 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. East Lansing, MI 48824.

MSU Homepage Privacy Statement Contact Human Resources eMail HR Webmaster LastUpdated: April 6, 2012

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

About ADAPP-ADVANCE

Frequently Asked Questions

Resources for...

e-News

Helpful Links

Connect With Us

Reappointment, Promotion, And Tenure Toolkit

Home › Reappointment, Promotion, And Tenure Toolkit

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures in the MSU Faculty Handbook

Workshops, Programs and Resources on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure

Resources for FacultyResources for Administrators

Check List of Required Practices in RP&T – Unit Guidelines

Printer Friendly Document

Check List of Required Practices in RP&T – College Guidelines

Printer Friendly Document

Operating Principles of the Tenure Systemhttp://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/TenurePrinc.htm

Summary:Provides principles regarding the start dates for probationary appointments, leaves of absence, notification ofnon-reappointment, appointments of foreign nationals, interpretation of the tenure rules and where tenureresides.

Granting Tenurehttp://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/granttenure.htm

Summary: Faculty members with the Rank of Professor in the tenure system are granted tenure from thedate of appointment.

Faculty members appointed as Associate Professors without tenure and who have served previously at MSUare appointed in the tenure system for a probationary period of, generally, two to five (2-5) years.

A newly appointed Associate Professor can be granted tenure from the date of appointment.

Faculty members appointed as an Assistant Professor are appointed for an initial probationary period of fouryears and may be reappointed for an additional probationary period of three years.

Reassigning Tenured Facultyhttp://hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/facultyreassign.htm

Summary:Tenure at MSU resides in the University. Thus, if a unit is discontinued, reassignment of the faculty isnormally in another academic unit and is negotiated with the faculty member and the receiving unit.

ADAPP-ADVANCE | MSU | Contact Us |

Search:

Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures in the MSU Faculty Handbook

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

Stopping the Tenure ClockImplementation Practiceshttp://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/implementation.htm

Summary:Provides reasons for automatic, one-year extension of probationary appointments and information about theprocess for requests of extensions for other reasons.

Post Tenure ReviewPo: http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/posttenure.htm

Summary:There is not a distinct process for post tenure review. Post-tenure review is implemented by monitoringperformance through the annual performance evaluation process. The post tenure review process can resultin a plan which leads to increased productivity or enhanced professional achievement by the faculty member.Depending on the outcome of the plan, the process can result in disciplinary action, including dismissal.

Faculty Handbook Policies:

Policy and Procedure for Implementing Disciplinary Action Where Dismissal is Not SoughtProvides causes for discipline, the process, and possible disciplinary actions.http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/Disciplinary.htmDismissal of Tenured Faculty for CauseProvides grounds for dismissal and the stages of the process.http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/dismissal.htm

Appointment, Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion RecommendationsPolicies in the Faculty Handbook:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/recommendations.htm

Summary:Handbook outlines the process initiated at the unit level, based on both peer review of candidates and unitstandards for performance. Candidates are reviewed at the college and university levels; these reviews arebased on explicit unit criteria and quality evaluations, consistent with college and university policies andgoals. Recommendations can be positive or negative for: reappointment of an Assistant Professor for asecond probationary period; reappointment of a tenure-system, untenured Associate Professor with theaward of tenure; promotion of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with the award of tenure; promotionof an Associate Professor to Professor. An overview of the standards for such recommendations is presented.

Tenure Action and PromotionOverview in the Faculty Handbookhttp://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/tenureaction.htm

Summary:This section includes an overview of the extensive information needed to evaluate faculty performance fortenure action and promotion. Expectations for action are unit specific and dependent on an individual’sparticular assignment.

College-Level Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee PoliciesGuidelines in the Faculty Handbook:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/reapptTenure.htm

Summary:University Policy Each college is required to establish a college-level reappointment, promotion and tenure committee that ischarged to provide advice to the dean about department/school recommendations for reappointment,promotion and tenure. Deans are responsible for personnel matters in her or his respective college, takinginto account the college’s advisory procedures. College-level reappointment, promotion and tenurecommittees provide input to the dean in making reappointment, promotion and tenure decisions.

PrinciplesEach college must include in its written materials rules governing the reappointment, promotion, and tenureprocess, a procedure for establishing a college-level reappointment, promotion and tenure review committee,including methods for selecting committee members and how the committee will function.

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

Guidelines for Academic Unit Peer Review Committee CompositionGuidelines in the Faculty Handbook:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/peerReviewUnit.htm

Summary:Each unit establishes procedures to provide peer review advice to unit administrators regardingrecommendations for academic personnel actions, including merit salary increases. The unit bylaws shouldindicate the designated group(s) to whom recommendations regarding reappointment, tenure and promotionshould be made. Guidelines for Peer Reviews Committee Composition are outlined.

External Letters of ReferencePolicies in Faculty Handbook:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/refLetters.htm

Summary:External letters of reference are required for all reviews involving the granting of tenure or promotion. Someunits require external letters for reappointment. Practices may vary by unit, but the principles of solicitingletters of reference are outlined.

Policies regarding the Confidentiality of Letters of Reference:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/tenureRecommend.htm

Summary:In soliciting letters of reference a specific statement of confidentiality MUST be included in the request. Thesuggested wording of the statement is listed in faculty handbook reference above.

Evaluation of Non-Tenured Faculty in the Tenure SystemPolicies in the Faculty Handbook:http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/nontenured.htm

Summary:The above reference outlines the process for evaluating non-tenured, tenure-system faculty. The actions tobe taken upon decision not to reappoint are outlined and the possible responses of the faculty member notreappointed are presented.

Faculty Guide for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure – an OverviewGeneral Guidelines:http://hr.msu.edu/promotion/facacadstaff/FacGuideTenure.htm

Summary:Provides overview of RPT process including time table, early promotion & tenure, visa status, effective datesfor various decisions and outcomes, Survive and Thrive workshop descriptions, University level review andtenure and promotion recognition dinners. Also presents data on RPT processes from the last five years.

1. Survive and Thrive in the MSU Tenure Systemhttp://fod.msu.edu/SurviveThrive/about.aspNormally scheduled in Mid October – Half day Workshop

The workshop has the following objectives:

To expand faculty members’ understanding of department and University reappointment,promotion and tenure procedures.To discuss approaches to documentation and record keeping for reappointment, promotionand tenure purposes.To provide practical information on making choices, balancing conflicting demands, andmanaging departmental politics.To provide an opportunity for communication and problem solving among faculty andacademic administrators. Many faculty members find it helpful to attend this program morethan once, finding different elements useful at different stages of their pre-tenureexperience.

Workshops, Programs and Resources on Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure

For Faculty

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

2. From Associate Professor to Professor: Productive Decision-making at Mid-Careerhttp://fod.msu.edu/SurviveThriveII/about.aspFor Recently Appointed Associate Tenure-System Professors

This one-half day workshop is scheduled during the spring semester and has the followingobjectives:

1. To clarify expectations for attaining the rank of full professor;2. To enable new associate professors to better anticipate the opportunities and challenges they

will face and to inform their mid career decision-making and experiences; and3. To provide a venue for faculty members to ask questions about this new stage in their

careers.

3. Spring Institute on College Teaching and Learning

http://fod.msu.edu/SpringInstitute/about.aspSingle and multi-day workshops are offered on topics related to active learning, inclusive teaching,and assessment.

4. Online Instructional Resources

http://fod.msu.edu/oir/index.aspInstructional resources on a large number of instructional resources that are available on the web areavailable from this site, organized by major topical areas.

5. Orientation For New Tenure System and Health Programs Faculty, Continuing SystemLibrarians and National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory Appointments

http://fod.msu.edu/orientation/TSHP_about.aspOrientation for all NEW tenure system faculty events occur in late August and includes, in addition tothe general orientation, a research section and an additional technology workshop.

6. Workshop for Faculty Leaders

http://fod.msu.edu/wfl/about.aspWorkshops for Faculty Leaders (WFL), provide leadership development for faculty in their many rolesin governance, search committees, research projects and large labs, and the myriad of contexts inwhich faculty rely on leadership skills.

7. Support for Research

http://resfacil.msu.edu/Office of Research Facilitation and Dissemination sponsors a variety of faculty research workshops,seminars and discussion groups.

8. Events and resources provided by the Women’s Resource Center:

http://wrc.msu.edu/events.php?eventsPast programs have included:

"Letting Off a Little Self Esteem""College to Career Transition""Training for a Future in Political Office"

Orientation for New Administrators – Office of Faculty and Organizational Developmenthttp://fod.msu.edu/orientation/EXM_about.aspThree half-day sessions, mandatory orientations for department chairs, school directors, and deans, areheld in early August. The program includes:

For Administrators

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

1. Hiring, Promotion, Tenure and Performance Review2. University Research Policies and Procedures3. Survival Skills for New Administrators4. Conflict Resolution Resources5. Legal and Regulatory Environment

LEAD programs – Office of Faculty and Organizational Developmenthttp://fod.msu.edu/lead/about.aspLEAD workshops are offered for deans, chairs, directors and executive managers, sponsored by the Officeof Faculty and Organizational Development in the Office of the Provost. These programs are designed topromote ongoing communication among academic administrators, provide leadership developmentopportunities, and support campus leaders (deans, chairs, directors, and executive managers) in theirefforts to foster organizational change in their units.Past programs have included topics such as:

1. Making Joint Appointments a Success2. Tackling the Human Resources Challenges of the Chair/Director3. Study of Mid-Career Faculty: Implications for Practice4. Strategies for Advancing Diversity and Quality at MSU in a Post-Prop 2 Environment5. Success in the Academic Hiring Process from Start to Finish6. Faculty Performance Review and Development: Improving the Process and its Outcomes

Resources from the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiativeshttp://www.inclusion.msu.edu/

1. Bias-Free Communication Brochure2. Sexual Harassment training programs3. Bias Incident Reporting and Training4. Brochure on Assuring Equity and Non-discrimination5. Annual Data Reports on Inclusion and Diversity at MSU

In Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure Practices (Unit Guidelines)

Printer Friendly Document

Below are guidelines regarding required practices for UNITS when reviewing Reappointment, Promotionand Tenure Policies and Procedures.

The unit has written materials governing the appointment, promotion and tenure processes andthe procedure for establishing a unit-level merit review committee.

The unit has developed general guidelines and expectations for tenure-system facultyreappointment as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor with Tenure, and for promotion fromAssociate to Full Professor.All guidelines and expectations for reappointment, promotion and tenure are available to allfaculty in the unit.

Guidelines and expectations for RPT are discussed on a regular basis by the faculty.

Guidelines and expectations for RPT at the Unit level are reviewed to be consistent with theguidelines and expectations of the College (or Colleges for jointly administered units).

Description of the materials that must be submitted for the unit-level RPT reviews forreappointment and promotion are readily available to all faculty members.

The process for evaluation of RPT packages at the unit level is clearly defined and readilyavailable to all faculty members.

The chair/director or designated person(s) uses the annual performance review process to informand guide pre-tenure faculty regarding progress to promotion/tenure.

The chair/director or designated person(s) uses the annual performance review process to informand guide tenured Associate Professors regarding progress to promotion to full professor.

Check List of Required Practices

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

The unit guidelines regarding the number and type of external evaluation letters to be included inthe performance review are clearly defined and readily available to all faculty.

The timeline for the unit-level RPT process is made readily available to the faculty each year.

The guidelines for RPT for faculty jointly appointed in multiple units are made readily available toall RPT peer review committee members.

The multiple appointment memorandum is consulted when reviewing faculty members who arejointly appointed in more than one unit (see - http://hr.msu.edu/forms/faculty_forms/FormInfoMam.htm).The unit makes information regarding unit, college and university resources to assist faculty inpreparing for RPT readily available to all faculty members.

The Unit RPT committee is given input and guidance regarding the review process so thatevaluations are consistent, objective, and are aligned with the written unit-level expectations forthe faculty.The unit and college guidelines and expectations, as well as the university RPT policies arereviewed by the unit RPT committee prior to reviewing RPT materials. Unit (and college)expectations should support the missions of MSU.The chair/director meets with the unit RPT committee and discusses each recommendation madeby the committee.

Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure (Colleges Guidelines)

Printer Friendly Document

Below are guidelines regarding required practices for COLLEGE DEANS' OFFICES to consider whendeveloping, reviewing or revising Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures.

The College has written materials governing the reappointment, promotion and tenure processand procedure for establishing a college-level RPT review committee

Dean has informed the unit administrators about the procedures and criteria that the College willuse regarding decisions about reappointment of Assistant Professors and untenured AssociateProfessors with the award of tenure.The College has developed general guidelines and expectations for promotion to AssociateProfessor with tenure and from Associate to Full Professor.

All guidelines and expectations for reappointment, promotion and tenure are available to alltenure system faculty members in the College.

Guidelines and expectations for RPT are discussed on a regular basis with the unit chairs anddirectors.

Guidelines and expectations for RPT at the College level are reviewed to be consistent with theUniversity guidelines and expectations.

The process for evaluation of RPT packages at the College level is clearly defined and readilyavailable to all faculty members in the College.

The College RPT committee reviews (1) the unit and college criteria for reappointment orpromotion prior to reviewing unit recommendations, and (2) the university policies andprocedures regarding the RPT process.The Dean meets with the College RPT committee and discusses each recommendation from thecommittee.

Information regarding unit and college evaluation criteria and expectations are included with theDean's recommendation to the Provost's Office.

The multiple appointment memorandum is consulted when reviewing faculty jointly appointed inmore than one unit (see - http://hr.msu.edu/forms/faculty_forms/FormInfoMam.htm).

For faculty jointly appointed in another college, input is sought from the secondary college whenreviewing RPT recommendations at the college level.

Check List of Required Practices

Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Toolkit | ADAPP-ADVANCE: Advancing Diversity through the Alignment of Policies and Practices

http://www.adapp-advance.msu.edu/reappointment-promotion-and-tenure-toolkit[4/11/2012 10:42:40 AM]

On this site

About ADAPP-ADVANCE

Frequently Asked Questions

Resources for...

e-News

Helpful Links

Connect With Us

View All

Affiliated Colleges

View All

Project Support

View all

Other ADVANCE Institutions

ADAPP-ADVANCE is a project funded by NSF (#0811205)

Contact Us | Website Login | Developed by DECS 524 South Kedzie, East Lansing, MI 48824, Ph: 517-353-8818

© 2009 MSU Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.

Office of Faculty and Organizational Development

http://fod.msu.edu/opportunities/survive-and-thrive-msu-tenure-system[4/11/2012 10:43:54 AM]

HOME MISSION, POLICIES & ADVISORY BOARD OPPORTUNITIES & INTENDED PARTICIPANTS CONTACT US HELP

Username or e-mail * Password *

Create new account Request new password

Faculty andInstructionalDevelopment

Organizational andLeadershipDevelopment

Orientations

Community Building

Scholarship andResearch

Online InstructionalResources (OIR)

Intended Participants

Tenure System Probationary

Faculty

Survive and Thrive in the MSU TenureSystem

June Youatt, Senior Associate Provost; Theodore H. Curry II, AssociateProvost and Associate Vice President for Academic Human Resources; J. IanGray, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies; and a Panel of MSUDeans, Department Chairs, College Advisory Committee members andrecently tenured faculty

Thursday, October 13, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., MSU Union, ParlorsB&C

(Registration at 8:00 a.m.; program begins at 8:30 a.m.)

This workshop is designed for probationary tenure system faculty to provideassistance in functioning successfully within the tenure system at MSU. Workshopobjectives include:

1. to expand faculty members' understanding of a department and Universityreappointment, promotion and tenure purposes;

2. to provide practical information on making choices, balancing conflictingdemands, and managing departmental politics;

3. to provide an opportunity for communication and problem solving among facultyand academic administrators; and

4. to provide a venue for questions and answers. Many faculty members find ithelpful to attend this program more than once, finding different elements usefulat different stages of their pre-tenure experience.

Office of Faculty and Organizational Development

http://fod.msu.edu/opportunities/survive-and-thrive-msu-tenure-system[4/11/2012 10:43:54 AM]

SITEMAP ACCESSIBILITY PRIVACY STATEMENTOffice Of Faculty and Organizational DevelopmentMichigan State UniversityHannah Administration Building426 Auditorium Road, Room 308East Lansing, MI 48824-1024Phone: (517) 432-1185 Fax: (517) 432-2069Email: facdevel@msu.edu | leaders@msu.eduMSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer.

Powered by Drupal.Michigan State University website designand development by Tria Design Firm.

HHMI Lab Management: Making the Right Moves

http://www.hhmi.org/resources/labmanagement/moves.html[4/11/2012 11:29:49 AM]

HOME ABOUT HHMI PRESS ROOM EMPLOYMENT CONTACT

HHMI NEWS SCIENTISTS & RESEARCH JANELIA FARM SCIENCE EDUCATION RESOURCES & PUBLICATIONS

Making the Right Moves: APractical Guide to ScientificManagement for Postdocs and NewFaculty

Based on courses held in 2002 and 2005 by the BurroughsWellcome Fund and HHMI, this book is a collection ofpractical advice and experiences from seasoned biomedicalinvestigators. The second edition contains three newchapters on laboratory leadership, project management,and teaching and course design.

© 2006 by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and theBurroughs Wellcome Fund.

Download the second edition

New chapters (online only)

Writing a Letter of Recommendation How to Be a Member of an R01 NIH Study Section

"Starting a Research Groupin 1978: Are the LessonsStill Relevant?"2002 course keynote by HHMI President andNobel laureate Thomas R. Cech. Advice onobtaining a faculty position and achievingtenure, leading a research team, mentoringstudents, balancing research and teaching,and more. View Video

You may use, copy, or distribute Making the Right Moves andthis video or any excerpts provided that use is fornoncommercial educational purposes. Requests beyond thatscope should be directed to labmgmt@hhmi.org.

AT HHMI

Entering Mentoring(PDF, 964KB)

Starting a ResearchGroup: Advice fromHHMI President Thomas R. Cech

ON THE WEB

Inside the NIH GrantReview Process

Science Careers

CONTACT

labmgmt@hhmi.org

Back to Top

© 2012 Howard Hughes Medical Institute. A philanthropy serving society through biomedical research and science education.4000 Jones Bridge Road, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-6789 | (301) 215-8500 | email: webmaster@hhmi.org

Home | About HHMI | Press Room | Employment | Contact

At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory, Second Edition

http://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=1330466269569532682&fromlink=T&linkaction=full&linksortby=oop_title&--eqSKUdatarq=862[4/11/2012 11:31:25 AM]

Search (type two or more letters for suggestions): Or: Advanced Search

Checkout/View Cart

Username

PasswordRegister and Save

BOOKSBy TitleSubject AreasMonograph SeriesMonograph ArchiveAvailable by Special Request

JOURNALSCSH ProtocolsGenes & DevelopmentGenome ResearchLearning & MemoryPerspectives in BiologyPerspectives in MedicineRNA

CHILDREN'S BOOKS

MULTIMEDIA

ELECTRONIC BOOKS

BOOK-RELATED WEBSITES

BENCH MARKS

BIOSUPPLYNET

SYMPOSIUM ONLINE

Discounts on all purchases

Requesting a textbookexamination copy

Our latest catalog

Our latest price list

Our latest eNewsletter

Press releases

Book proposals

Information for librarians

Add this Title to Order List

Click to Enlarge

At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory, Second Edition

Subject Area(s): Laboratory Manuals/Handbooks

By Kathy Barker, Seattle, Washington

View sample pages from the book here

© 2010 • 372 pp., illus. (2 b/w), indexTrim size: 7” x 10”Hardcover • $61.00 • ISBN 978-0-879698-66-9

Also available as an Amazon Kindle book HERE.

Recommend

You may be interested in these related titles:

$61

$40

DescriptionSince 2002, the first edition of this best-selling book has helped thousands ofnewly appointed principal investigators successfully transition to running theirown labs. But changes in technology continue to transform the way science isdone, affecting ways in which labs communicate and collaborate, organize dataand supplies, and keep current on the latest developments. The culture ofscience has also evolved, as more scientists explore non-academic career paths,seek new ways to communicate information and ideas, and acquire skills andknowledge outside of their field. In the second edition of this book, Kathy Barkerhas substantially revised the text, offering PIs advice on adapting to the changesand challenges that the years have brought. New topics include collaborationcontracts, performance evaluations, communicating with non-scientists, tips forsucceeding on the tenure track, and professional development. With this book asa guide, any new or aspiring PI will be well-equipped to manage personnel, time,and institutional responsibilities with confidence.

About the author: Kathy Barker received her B.A. in Biology and English, andher M.A. and Ph.D. in Microbiology, from various branches of the University ofMassachusetts. She did her postdoctoral work in the laboratory of Viral Oncologyat Rockefeller University and was an Assistant Professor in the Laboratory ofCell Physiology and Immunology at Rockefeller University. She is now based inSeattle, where she writes and gives workshops on various aspects of running alab.

Add this Title to Order List

Contents

Molecular Cloning: A LaboratoryManual (Fourth Edition)

At the Bench: A LaboratoryNavigator, Updated Edition

At the Helm: A LaboratoryNavigator

At the Helm: Leading YourLaboratory, Second Edition

Molecular Biology of the Gene,Sixth Edition

The Biology of AlzheimerDisease

Top Sellers This Month

Full Text Search of Our

Books

Don't Miss This New Title

This handy reference guide forstatistical analyses is fastbecoming a must-have for allbiologists!

Visit the Sale Shelf

Visit our Sale Shelf for SpecialDiscounts on Selected Items

Discounts apply to directwebsite purchases by individualUS customers only. All sales arefinal.

Calling all Librarians!CSHL Press has created awebpage just for you. Finduseful links for productinformation, customer service,licensing, usage statistics, as wellas details on new and futureofferings. Also, sign up for ourquarterly librarian newsletter forlively news and the latestinformation.

At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory, Second Edition

http://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=1330466269569532682&fromlink=T&linkaction=full&linksortby=oop_title&--eqSKUdatarq=862[4/11/2012 11:31:25 AM]

CSHL Press at exhibitions

Buying classic book chapters

Reprint permissions

Foreign rights

Cold Spring Harbor LaboratoryHome

Meetings and Courses

Dolan DNA Learning Center

Watson School of BiologicalSciences

BioSupplyNet gives youlab protocols; tools fordata retrieval, analysis,and visualization; andinformation about findingkits and other laboratorysupplies. Read on...

PrefacePreface to the First EditionAcknowledgments KNOW WHAT YOU WANTThe Lab Where Everyone Wants to BeStart in the Right PlacePlan the Lab You WantStart Building RelationshipsResources YOU AS A LEADERI Was Trained to Do Everything But Run a Lab!Stop Putting Out Fires!Using Your TimeWorking with an Administrative AssistantBe Proactive in Finding a MentorResources CHOOSE YOUR PEOPLEChoose Your PeopleThe Hiring ProcessThe Effective InterviewEvaluating CandidatesResources STARTING AND KEEPING NEW LAB MEMBERSGetting Off to a Good StartTraining Lab PersonnelMentor to All?Resources MAKE RESEARCH THE FOUNDATIONSetting the CourseMotivationWriting PapersResources ORGANIZING THE LAB TO SUPPORT THE RESEARCHBuilding a Lab CultureLab PoliciesMeetings and SeminarsUsing Computers to Organize the LabResources COMMUNICATION AS THE GLUECommunication with Your LabThe Pleasures and Perils of DiversityGender Is Still an IssueLearning through ConflictStress and Depression in Lab MembersResources DEALING WITH A GROUPLab MoraleLab RomancesMaintaining Personnel Equilibrium“I Should Have Done It Sooner!”Violence in the WorkplaceResources FOR THE LONG RUNAs Your Job Changes...Maintaining EnthusiasmCareer ChoicesHaving It AllResources Index

Our Books on theBlogosphereGrrlScientist on ExperimentalHeart Photographer Timothy Archibaldon My Heart vs. The Real WOrld The hottest jobs in science, andhow to land them Adaptationomics New Evolution Textbook

PodcastsGeorgina Ferry on Max Perutzand The Secret of Life

Click in the box belowand paste into your

website:

At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory, Second Edition

http://www.cshlpress.com/default.tpl?cart=1330466269569532682&fromlink=T&linkaction=full&linksortby=oop_title&--eqSKUdatarq=862[4/11/2012 11:31:25 AM]

Related ProductsLab Dynamics: Management Skills for Scientists [Paperback]At the Bench: A Laboratory Navigator, Updated Edition [Concealed wire binding]

Annual Schedule of RTP Reviews

DEPARTMENT-SCHOOL LEVEL

RTP discussions with chair and department-school review committee Spring-Summer Organizing RTP dossiers Summer-early Fall Solicitation of external reviews (only for 2nd Summer-early Fall reappt and prof reviews) Department-and school-level review of RTP candidates Middle-late Fall Submission of RTP dossiers to College 2nd

Fri in December

COLLEGE LEVEL

(To go into effect Fall 2011: Preliminary presentation of RTP candidates by CANR chairs and directors to Dean and Directors, Early Fall)

CANR RTP Committee reviews Very early January College-level Dean and Director reviews Late Jan-early Feb ***Initial feedback to candidates re status from chairs-directors to candidates Early -mid Feb Revision of dossiers, if needed, with resubmission to College Mid-late Feb Submission of dossiers, including Dean's recommendation, to University Committee (Gray, Youatt, Curry) Late Feb

UNIVERSITY LEVEL

Dean's meeting with University Committee to review dossiers Mar-Apr ***Preliminary decision from Univ review communicated to candidates by chairs-directors

Mar-Apr

Review of Univ-Ievel decisions by provost, then, president Apr-mid May *'*Final decision communicated to candidates by chairs-directors late May-early June Tenure actions taken by MSU Board of Directors June board meeting (RTP decisions go into effect July 1 of that year; declinations of first and second reappointments result in position terminations on August 15 of the following year)

CANR P&T 2012-2013

Department/School

Representative Term Expires August 15th

AFRE Lindy Robison 2015

CARRS Pete Kakela 2013

BAE Brad Marks 2014

ANS Rob Templeman 2014

ENT Rufus Isaacs 2013

FW Bill Taylor 2014

FSHN Sharon Hoerr 2013

FOR David Skole 2015

HRT Randy Beaudry (chair) 2014

PKG Pascal Kamdem 2015

PSM Brian Teppen 2013

SPDC Jo Westphal 2015

Principles for Faculty Evaluation

CANR Promotion and Tenure Committee

1. To effectively evaluate a faculty member, the Committee must consider and evaluate three major

categories for excellence:

a. an assessment of the faculty member’s performance of assigned duties;

b. an assessment of the person’s scholarly achievements; and

c, an assessment of the person’s service activities.

In conducting assessments, the Committee operates on the premise that faculty excellence is a matter to

be judged, not measured.

2. Assigned duties for a faculty member can include research, teaching, extension/outreach and/or

administration. Because the college is a collaborative effort, contributions to collaborative works are

included in the assessment of performance of assigned duties. Furthermore, it is expected that a faculty

member will demonstrate a commitment to standards of intellectual and professional integrity in all

aspects of faculty responsibilities. The Committee acknowledges that some faculty positions will be more

disciplinary oriented with few additional responsibilities, whereas others may have extensive assigned

duties in teaching, extension/outreach, advising) or administration. However, some scholarly activities

are expected of all tenure-track faculty members regardless of assigned duties. The Committee

assesses performance according to assigned duties,

3. In order to evaluate a faculty member, the Committee – following Boyer (1990) and Weiser (1999)

defines scholarly achievements as a creative work that is peer-reviewed and publicly disseminated.

not in relation to the budgetary appointment.

As such there are six forms of scholarship:

a) discovery of knowledge;

b) multidisciplinary integration of knowledge;

c) development of new technologies, methods, materials or uses;

d) application of knowledge to problems;

e) dissemination of knowledge; and,

f) interpretation in the arts.

This definition can be applied to teaching, research, extension/outreach, service and administration

duties. The Committee is interested not only in how faculty invest their time, the activities ill which they

participate, and who they reach, but also in the short, medium and long term results and impacts of the

faculty’s scholarly efforts.

4. Service activities are implicit in the appointment of all faculty members. A faculty member is

expected to demonstrate excellence in service through a continuing commitment to academic

professional and public service activities.

5. A faculty member is expected to demonstrate continual involvement in his or her intellectual and

performance capabilities by improving his or her effectiveness in teaching, research, extension/outreach)

service and/or administration. A faculty member also is expected to make contributions to the collegial

environment of his or her academic unit.

Boyer, Ernest L. 1990

References

Scholarship Reconsidered – Priorities of the Professorate.

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

Princeton: The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion. Michigan State University) East Lansing, Mich. November 2, 1995.

Committee of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Faculty Evaluation Principles,

Scholarly Activity Definition,

2004.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, October 25,

Department of Agricultural Economics, Bylaws Annex II: Guidelines for Performance Evaluation of New

Tenure System Faculty for Reappointment,

Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Hubers, and Gene L Maeroff. 1997.

Tenure and Promotion, (Approved December 6, 1993;

Effective July 1, 1994.) Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mich.

Scholarship Assessed-

Evaluation of the Professorate.

Weiser, Conrad J. 1999.

San Francisco; Josey-Bass Publishers.

Final Report to the Kellogg Foundation,

October 1998. Oregon State University

Workshop. Scholarship Unbound: Reframing Faculty Evaluation and Rewards. Oregon State University,

Corvallis, Oregon.

Points of Relevance for Junior Faculty

Promotion and Tenure Committee

Review the Principles for Faculty Evaluation that the CANR

Quality not quantity. The Committee emphasizes quality, impact and that the tendency to list everything

is not helpful and tends to obscure the more significant.

P&T Committee uses.

Top Journals in your field. A part of quality is to publish at least some work in the top journals in your

subject area. The Committee looks for that evidence, especially at tenure decision time.

Reflective essay. This is your opportunity to show the quality of your thinking, your vision and the logic for

your program, your strategy and implementation, including weaving in what you have achieved to date,

your trajectory and where you plan to be in 10 years. The essay should emphasize the intellectual

foundation of your work and plan in contrast to reporting or listing what you have done; the later should

be well covered in the university forms and your vitae.

Early promotion. The Committee looks [or compelling reasons for this award, a truly an extraordinary

record of scholarship. A significantly higher standard of achievement is expected than for promotion in

the normal time period for the rank. Life is long and there is no great benefit to the individual and

institution to rush its major stages, except for the very exceptional case.

Your area of scholarly excellence. Begin early to think about and develop your topic of excellence, what

you will be known for, and articulate this expertise in your documents. For example, your goal is for

anyone in your national or international field, if asked, to identify you as a world authority on the subject

(modified of course for the culture of excellence in your discipline/assignment area).

Elements of a Strong RTP Package

Guidelines were prepared by Professor Doug Landis, CANR RTP Committee, Entomology.

These recommendations have been adopted by the CANR RTP Committee and are used in portfolio reviews.

Reappointment to Assistant Professor

Bottom line: clear evidence that the candidate is establish a program that can achieve excellence

Some benchmarks include:

in the area(s) of major appointment. The candidate does not need to be there yet, but there should be clear signs that they are on their way.

• In Research Obtains sufficient funding to initiate a program Increasingly, some funding should be sought from competitive national

sources Attract students and/or post-docs

(USDA, NSF, NIH etc.)

Finishes publishing prior work (PhD, post-doc) and ideally has MSU work published or in press

• In Teaching Is recognized as a solid teacher by colleagues and students Shows true interest in teaching, evidence of innovation Obtains very good SIRS summary scores (1's and 2's) and/or is showing

evidence of improvement

• In Outreach Obtains sufficient funding to initiate a program Is recognized by clientele and colleagues as interested and dedicated to

outreach Shows initiative/innovation in outreach

• In Service Contributes to Departmental activities when asked Evidence of potential for contributions at national level e.g. Journal peer reviewer Membership in state/regional committees

CANR

Background

Initiative: Strengthening faculty scholarship across the mission 1/25/08 (revised)

During Fall Semester 2007 there was a robust discussion of scholarship – what it is and how it might be evaluated – in our College. This discussion was prompted by a call from the Dean’s Office: the need to sharpen our ability to fulfill mission-related obligations as we do a better of job of acknowledging and rewarding faculty for the work they do.

While faculty at MSU and CANR

While these are important questions, it became apparent quickly that there are differences of opinion about what scholarship is and how it might be evaluated across the mission. For example, some saw virtually any work undertaken by faculty members – when that work is prepared and deployed thoughtfully (e.g., teaching an undergraduate class) – as scholarship. Others saw teaching classes as an important scholarly activity, but not as scholarship, which they saw as creating something new for a body of knowledge through peer-validation.

are expected to make contributions through research that move the frontiers of knowledge in their respective fields, they also undertake a variety of other work –undergraduate education, graduate education, and an array of Extension outreach and engagement responsibilities, on campus, around the state, across the nation, and all over the world – that often falls outside of the conventional way that we acknowledge and reward faculty for work in the research domain. It appears to some that research has become (or is becoming) the primary frame of reference for evaluating and rewarding faculty work. At issue, then, is how do we judge the quality of work undertaken across the mission (not just in research)? And, what does scholarship look like when it is expressed outside of research?

In addition, two primary concerns were expressed about the discussion of scholarship, generally. First, there were concerns that these discussions might lead to “one size fits all” metrics across CANR –applied to everyone, everywhere irrespective of potential differences in the work they do (e.g., teaching a study abroad course vis-a-vis involving students in an engagement experience overseas). In other words, while there is not likely to one answer to any core question (e.g., What is quality of Extension work), there probably are multiple answers to any question, with each answer fitting the nature of the work undertaken and/or the academic context in which it is being exercised. Second, concerns were expressed that emphasizing scholarship across the mission might diminish the value of work associated with teaching classes, doing Extension, and undertaking other non-research roles. If we were to emphasize work associated with scholarship in teaching, for instance, would that emphasis diminish the value of teaching classes? If so, then it might be better 110tto have these discussions at all.

Points of Agreement

Interestingly, while no consensus emerged about how to frame the discussion, including how to define basic terms, there was general agreement about a framework— advanced in first form in September that stayed intact as the semester-long discussion unfolded: 1) for evaluating the quality and impact of teaching, research, and Extension-outreach-engagement activities; and 2) for defining and evaluating the quality and impact of scholarship associated with teaching, research, and Extension-outreach-engagement. Both outcomes seemed to be worthy in intent and outcome. The dual focus is expressed in the text that follows.

In all activities associated with teaching, research and Extension-outreach-engagement, faculty members undertake work that is informed by an academically recognized boyd of knowledge, undertaken in a scholarly manner, and evaluated as having quality with impact.

Undergirding this two-pronged framework-again without much disagreement, although with interpretive differences— were statements authored at various times by faculty committees at the University and

Scholarship across the mission – irrespective of whether it is associated with teaching, research or Extension-outreach-engagement – involves creating something new and valuable (that is, makes a contribution) in a disciplinary, professional, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary field; having the work validated such as by peers; and making the work “public,” that is, is available in an academically legitimate location for use in teaching, research, or Extension-outreach-engagement work.

CANR

From

levels, respectively.

MSU policy:

http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/index.htm.

Through its faculty, MSU will create knowledge and find new and innovative ways to extend its applications, to serve Michigan, the nation, and the international community. The faculty must infuse cutting-edge scholarship into the full range of our teaching programs. At MSU, faculty are expected to be both active scholars and student-focused, demons/rating substantial scholarship and ability to promote learning through our on-campus and off-campus education and research programs. The essence of scholarship is the thoughtful discovery, transmission, and application of knowledge, including creative activities, that is based in the ideas and methods of recognized disciplines, professions, and interdisciplinary fields. What qualifies an activity as scholarship is that it be deeply informed by the most recent knowledge in the field, that the knowledge is skillfully interpreted and deployed, and that the activity is carried out with intelligent openness to new information,

From

debate and criticism.

CANR Promotion and Tenure Committee Policy:

In order to evaluate a faculty member, the Committee defines scholarly achievements as a creative work that is peer reviewed and publicly disseminated. As such there are six forms of scholarship: discovery of knowledge; multidisciplinary integration of knowledge,’ development a/flew technologies, methods, materials or uses; application of knowledge to problems; dissemination of knowledge; and interpretation in the arts. This definition can be applied to teaching, research, extension/outreach, service and administration duties. The Committee is interested not only in how faculty invest their time, the activities in which they participate, and who they reach, but also in the short, medium and long term results and impacts of the faculty ‘s scholarly efforts.

CANR-Faculty Statement on Scholarly Activities, Scholarship, and Impact

Spring 2012

Purpose. This statement has been created by the Faculty within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR) to clarify the definitions and expectations for scholarly activities, scholarship, and impact in the context of review for reappointment to Assistant Professor (after the third year probationary period), and for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure to enable new faculty to understand current expectations. Additionally, the purpose of this statement is to enable mid-career faculty to understand how expectations have changed over time for promotion to the rank of Professor, and for Senior faculty to use within mentoring activities. Further, the goal of this statement is to share with the University our types of work and what we do. The criteria the document contains identify how we can move our work from scholarly activity to scholarship. The definitions and examples within this statement can be applied to teaching, research, extension/outreach, service and administration. It is important to remember that the evaluation of scholarly activities, scholarship, and impact will be consistent with an individual’s programmatic thrust and CANR appointment. This document is to provide a faculty voice to join the existing documents of: Promotion and Tenure: Philosophy and Protocol; Dean’s-Level Expectations; and Elements of a Strong RTP Package, which are used for portfolio review by the CANR RTP Committee. All of these documents can be found on the CANR web page at the following link: http://www.canr.msu.edu/canr/search_results?search=yes&query=Scholarship+Across+the+Mission.

Process. During the fall of 2011, a faculty representative from each unit was invited to attend the Faculty Scholarship Retreat, which was convened by the CANR Office for Faculty Development. Existing documents and scholarship across the mission statements from CANR units were reviewed and used as a basis for discussion of how to define scholarly activities, scholarship and impact as they apply to the expectations for reappointment, tenure and promotion within the context of the CANR and MSU missions. From those discussions, the statements within this document were created. The document has been vetted with Faculty within each unit by the respective College Advisory Council (CAC) representative, and has been approved by the CAC during December 2011. The document has also been vetted with the CANR Dean, Chairs and School Directors for their feedback. The statement is intended to lend clarity and transparency to the RTP process within CANR.

Scholarly Activities

All professional activities of the CANR Faculty are expected to be scholarly. Scholarly activities do not necessarily result in works of scholarship; however, works of scholarship are always culminations of scholarly activities. Examples of scholarly activities include:

• Papers, such as abstracts or proceedings, that are not peer-reviewed • Non-competitive funding such as contracts or repeatedly renewed grants where proposed

research funding is highly probable. • Presentations to professional or stakeholder meetings • Non-competitive exhibits, performances, or built works

1

• Public press materials • Scholarly Activities that have not been peer validated or adopted by others such as:

o Development of educational or pedagogical materials o Bulletins o Audio-visual productions o Handbooks o White papers o Workshops o Information databases o Development of germplasm o Student products o Bibliographies o Book reviews

• Student advising (undergraduate and graduate)

Scholarship

The essence of scholarship is the thoughtful discovery, transmission, and application of knowledge, including creative activities, that is based in the ideas and methods of disciplines, professions, and interdisciplinary fields. Scholarship is deeply informed by the most recent knowledge in the field, is skillfully interpreted and deployed, and is carried out with intelligent openness to new information, debate, and criticism. Scholarship meets three defining criteria: the activity creates something new, the work is peer-validated, and the work is publicly disseminated and available. Forms of scholarship include discovery of knowledge; multidisciplinary integration of knowledge; development of new technologies, methods, materials or uses; application of knowledge to problems; dissemination of knowledge; and interpretation in the arts. The outputs of scholarship are given a special place in evaluating Faculty performance at MSU and these objective creations are distinct from both the scholarly activities that undergird them and the impacts that flow from scholarship.

The objective outputs of scholarship are creative works that receive critical and appropriate validation (e.g., peer-review) and are publicly disseminated or accessible. Works of scholarship are viewed as the critical objective products of scholarly activities, and examples of such works include:

• Refereed publications • Juried competitions • Successfully funded competitive grants • Peer reviewed/competitive exhibits, performances, and built works • Patents, crop/cultivar releases, and licenses • Books and peer validated/competitively selected book chapters • Scholarly activities that become validated upon adoption by others:

o Pedagogy development o Bulletins o Handbooks o White papers o Workshop materials

2

o Information databases or software o Audio-visual productions and new media o Policy

Impacts

Impacts of scholarship and scholarly activities can be defined as their effects on practice, thought, and systems. Each faculty member contributes a body of knowledge to society, and assessment of impact is an attempt to integrate the quality of productivity over a career. Thus, individual flexibility needs to be allowed in the use of criteria, and weighted for career stage, to evaluate impact by examining changes over time, as well as the depth, breadth and quality of the impact. The ability of the impact to catalyze/instigate positive and sustainable change while aligning with the mission of CANR is valued.

Examples of impact include:

• Significant improvement in economic, social or environmental conditions of a community, region, agency, industry or other sector

• Invitations to present or write • Generation of major gifts to endow a program • Citations of work by others • Adoption or use of work by others • Awards, honors, and professional recognition • Invitations to serve on review panels or to review papers or proposals • Leadership in field/discipline and duration of such leadership • Awards or competitive work by students • Placement and career success of former students in the discipline/industry • Students taught and student responses to classes

Summary

This document defines scholarship as a creative work that is peer-reviewed and publically disseminated. It is important that we define and apply basic, uniform principles of scholarship across the multiple forms of scholarship in CANR. It is critical to always remember that scholarship is not defined by what one does, but by the results and impacts on target audiences.

3

What is an Assistant Professor?

Dean's-Level Expectation:

(with specific reference to MSU as a research, intensive, Land Grant institution, with international obligations)

There is clear and abundant evidence that the assistant professor is confirming the potential seen in her or him at the time of initial appointment.

1. Establishing focus in one's work-one's "headline"-is critical. Focus represents a targeted area of scholarship for which one is known, a domain in which a scholarly reputation is built. There must be evidence that the declaration of focus is substantiated by high-quality, nationally (and/or internationally) competitive work in at least one dimension of the academic mission.

2. There is abundant evidence that all assignments are being undertaken with attention to scholarly quality and with work completed on a timely basis. Put another way, there are no apparent weaknesses in any of the primary areas of responsibility. The faculty member is perceived to be competent and has her or his "act together."

3. There is widespread recognition of collegial engagement and contributions. The faculty member works collaboratively with peer and takes on and completes (with quality) assignments in teams. This includes project work, team-teaching, and governance and related assignments at the unit level and beyond.

4. There is evidence of contributions being made to students-undergraduate and/or graduate. These contributions include guest lecturing, teaching courses, serving as a club advisor, and mentoring-advising graduate students.

5. There is a strong conviction that the faculty member "is on the right track" with a high probability of experiencing a positive review at time of promotion to associate professor with tenure. Weaknesses in 1-4 are noted at the first reappointment...unless it is felt that the burden of evidence suggests against a reasonable chance of success at the time of the next review.

When submitting dossiers for reappointment there is documentation of evidence and alignment of commentary-with what the candidate says about himself/herself and what the unit administrator and MSU peers say about the candidate's work. A point of comparison is the candidate's performance relative to what would be expected at MSU's peer institutions.

Faculty Mentoring Policy

This policy was issued by the Office of the Provost on March 1, 2011 (to be effective Fall semester 2011); it reflects advice by the Faculty Council and the University Committee on Faculty Affairs

Academic Human Resources Policy

Each college shall implement a formal mentoring program by August 16, 2011. As a part of the college program, colleges may also require that each department or school develop its own unit level-mentoring program. Effective mentoring is important to enhancing academic excellence and building a progressively stronger faculty composed of members who meet continuously higher standards and are competitive nationally and internationally. Mentoring programs will help the University achieve its goals for a high-quality faculty, diversity, inclusive excellence, and a respectful, positive work environment in which all members of the University community can thrive. While the responsibility for career development and success is ultimately that of the individual faculty member, opportunity, mentoring and the degree of environmental support that is available can affect success.

There are many forms of mentoring programs and no single model will meet the needs of all units or individuals. Each college (and/or unit) should develop a program that is most relevant to its needs based upon evidence based best practices. The practices and procedures in colleges may vary; however, all college mentoring programs must incorporate, at a minimum, the principles included below.

Principles

1. For faculty members with joint appointments, there should be one mentoring plan for the faculty member, coordinated among the units, with leadership from the faculty member's lead unit.

2. Faculty members need different kinds of mentoring at different stages of their career. Initially, at minimum, colleges are expected to provide a mentoring program for pre-tenure, tenure system faculty, and build upon the program as capacity allows. This might include, for example, the addition of associate professors, HP faculty, or fixed term faculty for whom there is a long-term commitment.

3. Colleges, units and mentors should demonstrate sensitivity to potentially different challenges faced by diverse faculty including women, persons of color, and other facets of identity.

4. Conflicts of interest should be minimized, confidentiality protected, and all faculty members provided an environment in which they can address concerns without fear of retribution.

5. A faculty member may choose not to have a mentor. 6. Mentoring policies should be clearly communicated to all faculty members, and efforts must be

made to ensure that there is clarity of both expectations and roles for all parties. 7. Mentoring excellence will be considered in the annual review of faculty. 8. Formative evaluation shall be incorporated into the design of the mentoring program to maximize

benefit to each individual being mentored. 9. Colleges shall assess the effectiveness of their mentoring program on a cycle not to exceed five

years.

Frequently asked questions about the MSU Mentoring Policy:

1. What constitutes a formal, college-level mentoring program? A formal mentoring program intentionally ensures that every faculty member has access to formal mentoring relationships and resources. It is written, based on best practices, incorporates the principles of the MSU policy, and is explicitly communicated to all faculty.

2. Will every department now be required to have a formal policy and/or program? This will be up to each college. Each college will be required to implement a formal program that ensures that all faculty members have access to formal mentoring. Colleges may opt to administer formal mentoring at the college-level or require that each department or school develop a program, with college oversight.

3. Will the Office of the Provost mandate specific mentoring models for colleges, department, units,

or individuals? There will not be a requirement that specific models be adopted, either at the unit or mentor/mentee levels. The intent is that colleges and departments choose models that provide the highest likelihood for individual career development. Resources are available to assist in determining which models best meet a college's needs including consultations with college appointed Faculty Excellence Advocates, ADAPP-ADVANCE team members and the Office of Faculty and Organizational Development.

4. Will every faculty member be required to have a mentor? The policy explicitly states that a faculty member may choose not to participate in the formal mentoring program. Programs should, therefore, include explicit language that specifies both no penalty to the faculty member for opting out, as well as the option to rejoin the program.

5. How will the confidentiality of mentoring conversations be safeguarded? This is not a question that can be answered a priori. However, each college is required to address the protection of confidentiality in its program.

6. Does a mentor have to be a senior faculty member from within the college or department? Can he or she be a senior leader in the field?" Many mentoring models now exist in addition to the traditional single mentor/mentee dyad. The Policy does not require that specific models be adopted, either at the unit or mentor/mentee levels, but is interested in colleges and departments choosing models that provide the highest likelihood for individual career success. Resources arc available to assist in determining which models best meet college and individual needs including consultations with college appointed Faculty Excellence Advocates, ADAPP-ADVANCE team members and the Office of Faculty and Organizational Development.

7. How will mentoring programs be evaluated or assessed for effectiveness? As the policy indicates, formative evaluation measures should be incorporated into the design of college-and/or unit-level program, in order to be responsive to needs of and maximize benefits to each individual being mentored. More broadly, the college should formally and regularly assess the mentoring program(s) in five-year cycles, at minimum. ADAPP-ADVANCE resources are available to help colleges and departments decide on assessment strategies that are relevant to their program.

8. What resources are available to assist colleges and department in developing formal mentor programs? The Office of the Provost is committed to assisting colleges and departments as they implement improved or new mentor programs, For more information about the mentor policy, current or planned resources, assistance with getting started, or about the ADAPPADVANCE Institutional Transformation Initiative at MSU, please contact your FEA, or call the ADAPP-ADVANCE office at 353-8818, or visit .

Faculty Mentoring Policy

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (CANR)

Introduction

CANR is committed to the professional development and successful advancement of its faculty members. Toward that end, steps need to be taken to ensure that faculty reviews are conducted annually at the unit level (to include written assessments given to faculty members) and that faculty members are informed about the measures and indicators that will be used to evaluate their performance.

In addition, the College believes that effective faculty mentoring is an important component that contributes to successful professional development. Effective mentoring involves activities undertaken at the university, college, and unit levels. University policy requires that all colleges have a formal and substantive mentoring program for pre-tenure, tenure-stream faculty.

Department/School Obligations

CANR recognizes the central role that academic units play in enabling faculty development and it also respects the variation in disciplines-professions and missions across academic units in the College. With those points in mind, academic units will play the primary role in establishing formal and substantive mentoring for pre-tenure, tenure stream faculty members; and this mentoring will continue through the time of advancement to the rank of professor. Mentoring will also be available to fixed-term faculty members who hold the ranks of assistant professor and associate professor; and academic specialists who are appointed in the Continuing System, but who have not as yet earned Continuing Status.

The goals of department/school mentoring may vary by academic unit, but at a minimum should:

• Support faculty excellence across the mission by helping faculty establish and sustain a leading research program; effective teaching and engagement of undergraduate and graduate students; and an effective and high-impact extension, outreach, and engagement program.

• Encourage faculty involvement in professional activities, nationally and internationally.

• Help faculty strengthen their institutional and disciplinary-professional leadership skills.

The mentoring approach may vary among academic units, but must include the following elements:

1. There will be a written document incorporated into the unit bylaws and actively implemented, which identifies and communicates policies, goals, and expectations for mentor(s) and those being mentored.

1. There will be a description of the process to select mentors and a mechanism allowing for changes in assignment of mentors as appropriate for the junior faculty member’s needs, and an alternative provision for faculty members to

choose not to have mentors. One or more senior faculty members (not the including the academic unit administrator) should be assigned as mentors. Selection of mentors is not limited to the academic home of the junior faculty member.

2. For faculty members with joint appointments, there will be a single mentoring plan coordinated across units—with leadership provided by the lead unit.

3. There will be a description of expected mentoring activities with elements addressing research, teaching, extension and outreach, engagement, and leadership development.

4. There will be clarity regarding the roles of mentor(s) and the faculty member being mentored; expectations for confidentiality; the role of mentor(s), if any, in the annual evaluation and RPT process; and who (including the mentee) does/does not see written mentoring reports, if such reports are prepared.

5. There will be a description of how mentoring activities will be reported and evaluated as a portion of an individual’s service to the unit.

1. There will be support and leadership from the chair/director in integrating mentoring into departmental activities. Recognition of mentoring as a formal component of faculty service to the department and college should be incorporated into annual faculty evaluations for individuals who serve as mentors.

1. There will be sensitivity in the academic units and mentors to potentially different challenges faced by diverse faculty.

College Obligations

Support for mentoring CANR faculty members will be provided under the leadership and direction of the CANR Director of Faculty Development (DFD), who will also be responsible for the development and regular review of the policy. The DFD will also have responsibility for ensuring that all faculty members are informed about faculty development programs in CANR and at MSU. This support will include:

1. Provision of sources of information/link to available university resources concerning good mentoring practices and information about CANR unit policies;

2. Organization of workshops and faculty development programs(either by the College or in conjunction with the university, through such units as the Office of Faculty and Organizational Development);

3. Assistance for units (through the respective chair’s or director’s office) to create and maintain a central repository for information about mentoring policies; and

4. Provision of information to prepare new faculty (e.g., resources, expectations) as part of annual college orientation;

The DFD will also serve as a confidential source available to all CANR faculty members —to serve as a resource (by identifying appropriate individuals with relevant expertise for advice/consultation for professional development) and/or by discussing sensitive issues with CANR faculty members at the faculty members’ invitation.

Review and Evaluation

The effectiveness of the college and unit mentoring programs will be assessed at an interval not to exceed 5 years.

August 2008

Prepared on behalf of the College's Promotion and Tenure Committee and CANR Dean’s Office by Dave Schweikhardt, Professor, Department of Agriculture Food and Resource Economics, CANR-MSU, and Frank Fear, CANR Senior Associate Dean.

Introduction

The Reflective Essay is an integral part of the reappointment, tenure and promotion process at virtually all universities. The reason for its universal importance is that "a capacity for ret1ection and self-evaluation ... is a critical ingredient in a professor's life" (McGovern, p. 96).

As such, the Reflective Essay holds a unique position in the candidate's dossier of supporting evidence. The CV (curriculum vitae) and Form D--no matter what the length--will be read and discussed by reviewers. Consequently, the Reflective Essay should not be a summary of evidence presented in those documents. Instead, the Reflective Essay is "an opportunity to weave a tapestry of understanding of [your] scholarly pursuits "(Smith, p. ii).

Intent and Use

The Reflective Essay serves as the "key orienting and organizing element of the [dossier]" (Froh, et. al. p. 108) with the purpose of "providing a frame of reference 01' context for the items submitted to the committee" (Diamond, p. 24). Consequently, the Re!1ectivc Essay is the primary opportunity the candidate will have to convey the nature and meaning of her/his scholarly work and philosophy to those reviewers from his/her and other disciplines (Millis, p. 69).

Above all, the Reflective Essay should (a) convey the candidate’s

vision of herself/himself as a maturing or mature scholar (including describing one's scholarly niche); (b) communicate the contributions made during the reporting period in advancing toward that vision; (e) provide an indication (evidence) of the impact of the candidate's scholarly efforts; and (d) show development-evolution of the candidate's scholarship.

The objective of the Reflective Essay "is to convey as much depth and richness as possible by [employing] selective evidence of [scholarly) accomplishments" (Froh, et. al., p. 106). Above all, candidates should remember that the Ref1ective Essay is "a reflection of the care [the candidate) take(s) in communicating scholarship" (Smith, p. il).

Preparation Guidelines

The preparation of the Reflective Essay should begin early in one's MSU---CANR career, and should be updated on a periodic basis throughout the reporting period (c. g., during the annual evaluation process). Approaching it this manner will enable the candidate to prepare a document that represents a more accurate and convincing expression of the evolution of one's scholarly development. With all of this in mind, here are 8 guidelines for the development of a Rf1ective Essay: 1. Because the Reflective Essay is just

that--a personal reflection written in essay format--it is important that it

THE REFLECTIVE ESSAY: PERSPECTIVES AND GUIDELINES

College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Michigan State University

August 2008

Prepared on behalf of the College's Promotion and Tenure Committee and CANR Dean’s Office by Dave Schweikhardt, Professor, Department of Agriculture Food and Resource Economics, CANR-MSU, and Frank Fear, CANR Senior Associate Dean.

be crafted as an intellectual piece, an academic contribution in its own right, rather than as a document that reports academic accomplishments. Most of all, the essay should

“demonstrate a capacity to be reflective and self- critical; hence, capable of continued growth and change" as a scholar (Diamond, p. 24).

2. The Reflective Essay should convey the candidate's vision of himself/herself as a maturing or mature scholar. It is an opportunity to convey one's scholarly philosophy and vision; to describe how Scholarly priorities were established; to share the logic of one's program of scholarship (and its development); to make explicit the strategy (choice making) used over the years; and to be clear about one's future trajectory.

3. The Reflective Essay should be expressed in manner that is consistent with CANR's interpretation of scholarly activities and scholarship. Scholarly activities cut across the mission of teaching, research, and outreach / Extension / engagement. Activities are "things scholars do" (e.g., designing and offering an undergraduate class). While scholarship also applies to all mission dimensions, it is an outcome, not an activity. Scholarship involves creating something new; and it is designed to advance understanding by contributing something new to a body of knowledge. "Newness" is peer reviewed or validated; and products of scholarship are made available in publicly accessible forms and ill publicly available locations. The worth of both scholarly activities and scholarship is evaluated in multiple ways: in terms of intellectual quality (substance-content); quality of

expression (how the work is constructed and presented, particularly in terms of its relevance to intended audiences); and its impact on and/or use by intended audiences.

4. Because each candidate's mix of assigned duties is unique, the essay should address all aspects of the candidate's assigned duties---activities and scholarship--in a manner roughly proportionate to those duties-teaching, research, outreach / Extension/ engagement, and service to MSU and profession (Froh, et. al., p. 107). It is understood that scholarly activities and scholarship influence a wide range of audiences (e.g., disciplinary peers, scholars ill other disciplines, students, public officials, industry members, members of nongovernmental organizations). Consequently, just as each candidate's assigned duties is unique, the impact of each candidate's activities and scholarship is also likely to be unique (at the very least distinctive in nature and contribution).

5. Because the hallmark of the scholarly life is integration and connections across the mission, the Reflective Essay should demonstrate the candidate's integration of work across her/his assigned duties (e.g., how research influences teaching; how Extension influences research).

August 2008

Prepared on behalf of the College's Promotion and Tenure Committee and CANR Dean’s Office by Dave Schweikhardt, Professor, Department of Agriculture Food and Resource Economics, CANR-MSU, and Frank Fear, CANR Senior Associate Dean.

6. The Reflective Essay "provides a vehicle for discussion of special circumstances that have affected your work to-date" (Diamond, p, 24), There are always critical times or points in an academic's life, when an academic decides to move in one way or another. Sometimes these

times or points are products of one's own doing--a outcome of intent. At other times, they are either a result of opportunity ("being in the right place at the right time") or unexpected circumstance (e.g., departure of a senior collaborator from MSU).

7. The Ref1ective Essay also provides an opportunity for the candidate to explain "any contradictory or unclean materials in the [dossier]" (Seldin, p. 10). However, explanations should be reserved for unique events; and, when included in the essay, the description should not consume an undue portion of the essay.

8. A useful means of developing a Reflective Essay may be to periodically consider a series of "reflective prompts" that will induce reflection about "why we teach; why we work as we do; why we choose certain priorities in... scholarship; why we publish in this or that field or particular topic; ... [thereby leading to] meaningful inquiry into what we do and how we do it"

(Zubizarreta, p. 208, italics in original; for additional useful prompts, see McGovern, pp. 103-08).

Final Comments

Remember..., the Reflective Essay is the candidate's opportunity to communicate the quality of thinking, vision and logic of the program, strategy and implementation--incorporating what has been achieved to date; the trajectory of the program; and the targets and milestones anticipated in the next 10 years, The Essay must emphasize the intellectual foundation of the work and plans for the future. The Essay must not be a reporting or listing of what has been done in the past; this is well covered in Form D and the CV.

REFERENCES

Border, Laura L.B. "The Socratic Portfolio: A Guide for Future Faculty," PSOnline, 35(4): 739-742.

Diamond, Robert M, Preparing for Promotion and Tenure Review: A Faculty Guide, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 1995.

Froh, Robert C, Petcr J, Gray, and Leo M, Lambert. "Representing Faculty Work: The Professional Portfolio," In New Directions in Higher Education: Recognizing Faculty Work, Reward Systems for the Year 2000, edited by Robert M, Diamond and Bronwyn E, Adam, Number 81, Spring 1993, pp, 97-110.

McGovern, Thomas V, "Self-Evaluation: Composing an Academic Life Narrative," In Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Practical Guide /0 Assessing Teaching,

August 2008

Prepared on behalf of the College's Promotion and Tenure Committee and CANR Dean’s Office by Dave Schweikhardt, Professor, Department of Agriculture Food and Resource Economics, CANR-MSU, and Frank Fear, CANR Senior Associate Dean.

Research, and Service, edited by Peter Seldin, Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 2006, pp, 96-110.

Millis, Barbara J. "Shaping the Reflective P01ifolio: A Philosophical Look at the Mentoring Role," Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 6(1): 1995, 65-73.

Seldin, Peter. The Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 1991.

Smith, Terra L. "Documenting the New American Scholarship: Tenure and Promotion

Dossier Narratives," Higher Education Clearinghouse, Education Resources Information Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education, 2003.

Zubizarrela, John. "The Professional Portfolio: Expanding the Value of Portfolio Development." In Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Practical Guide to Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service, edited by Peter Seldin. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, 2006, pp. 201-216.

Reflective Essay, Janet M. Lewis, 2009

Why Breeding? I distinctly remember the day I decided to pursue a career in agriculture - it was in August, 1995, in Guatemala, The foundational role of agriculture in the health, stability, and sustainability of society became acutely apparent to me, I decided that improvements in agriculture would benefit mankind. As I begin my wheat breeding and genetics career at Michigan State University, I view my work in wheat breeding and genetics in the context of benefitting Michigan, firstly, as well as the region, nation and the interactional community. In addition, teaching is an important component of how I serve.

Wheat in Michigan:

As a wheat breeder and geneticist, my objective for Michigan is to develop improved varieties of wheat that enable better return on investment (e.g. higher yield, more competitive with other crops), more sustainable and predictable performance (e.g. fewer susceptibilities to biotic and abiotic stresses), and qualities that are necessary for post-harvest industries (e.g. desirable grain quality for wheat millers and end users), The fact that very little soft white wheat is grown regionally (perhaps 10% of wheat acreage in Ontario, Canada and New York, while as much as 40-50% wheat acreage in Michigan, and very little else in the Eastern U.S.), and few wheat breeders mc working on developing improved soft white winter wheat varieties for the Eastern U.S. (Mark Sorrells at Cornell, Mark Etienne at Hyland Seeds, and Greg Marshall at Pioneer Hi-Bred are notable), makes the soft white wheat breeding in Michigan all the more necessary.

The Michigan wheat industry, with its associated farmers (for whom wheat is used in rotation and contributes to soil health and management), millers (such as Star of the West Milling Co" and Chelsea Milling Co, -the makers of "JIFFY" mixes), cereal companies (such as Kellogg ® and Post ®), bakers and other end users has a major contribution to the agro-food industry in Michigan. The soft white wheat industry in Michigan (Michigan grows both soft red and soft white wheat) is especially valuable as soft white wheat production has dramatically declined in both Ontario, Canada, and New York over the past decade, and there is a great demand [or soft white wheat. It was reported that as of 2002, the total value of breakfast cereal, breads, bakery, cookies crackers and pasta manufacturing to Michigan was greater than 3,9 billion per year (Peterson et al., 2006), Positive Or negative changes in wheat production in the state, therefore, have an important impact on the health of the Michigan economy.

Problems to Overcome: Two problems that actively threaten Michigan’s wheat industry are Fusarium head blight (FHB) and Pre-harvest sprouting (PHS). Not only are both of these problems detrimental to the wheat industry as a whole, but they are especially damaging to the soft white wheat industry. White wheat accumulates more mycotoxin (deoxynivalenol, DON) from FBB infection than does red wheat (Knott et al., 2008, Lewis et al., 2008). In addition, the great value of white wheat as a class is the white bran, and wheat bran has shown 10 accumulate higher levels of DON than flour (Hazel and Patel, 2004), Michigan annually experiences varying levels of FBB, and there were severe epidemics in 1996 and 2004. U.S. federal advisory limits DON in wheat for human consumption not only emphasizes the concern of FHB as a human health risk, but results in farmers having few options to sell their contaminated seed (e.g. for feed or other purposes), and only at a much reduced price. Concerns about DON contamination in wheat are a

deterrent for farmer production of wheat, and white wheat contamination is marc problematic for fanners, millers and end users. Soft white wheat is also more susceptible to PHS than is red wheat. In 2008 and 2009 Michigan experienced severe problems with PHS in white wheat growing areas in the future. In 2008 the damage was primarily in the thumb, while in 2009 the damage to PHS was widespread around Michigan. One of the largest problems that Michigan is currently facing with respect to PHS is the change in the rating system used at the mills and the elevators. Farmers are historically familiar with "sprout count" a visual estimate of germinated seeds. In 2008, the use of "falling number"-a different scale, which tests the functionality of the grain -was used extensively in Michigan to the great distress of farmers. Fanners were neither familiar with the falling number test, nor were they being insured for their grain being rejected based on falling number. I received a personal voicemail message from a Michigan farmer who, because of the falling number problem, decided to stop growing wheat. Furthermore, little screening has been done to identify PHS resistance based on falling number. This opens up a whole new arena for identifying resistance and conducting research to hasten variety development. As FHB and PHS continue to loom large, these are the main areas of my research at MSU.

Breeding:

My breeding for PHS has, to date, been limited to a single source of resistance-'Cayuga'. This source of resistance is derived from 'Clark's Cream', and has proven to be the best source of resistance for Mark Sorrells (Cornell) who has studied PHS extensively and is also breeding soft white wheat. Mark Sorrells has collected additional germplasm with varying levels of PHS resistance, which he will be sending to MSU for us to investigate under our conditions. In 2009, early generation selection for PHS was begun using MAS of the QTL mapped from Cayuga. In contrast to Fl-IB, phenotypic screening is not effective

The steps that I have taken so far to combat FHB and PHS in Michigan span breeding, research and outreach/extension. The breeding program has been actively involved in phenotypic screening for resistance to PHB using inoculated nurseries for many years prior to the start of my position. I modified my approach 10 screening in the past two years by working to select PHB resistant breeding lines earlier. Early identification of resistance will give a higher chance of identifying lines with resistance as well as other necessary traits (such as yield), and also prevents us from wasting of resources on breeding lines that are not resistant. In addition to traditional phenotypic selection, in 2009 I began using Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) to enrich populations for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) associated with resistance. To date, much FHB breeding in the program has been conducted using Asian sources of resistance, for which OTL have been mapped (and thus, MAS is possible). Unfortunately, it is rare for our crosses with Asian sources of FH13 resistance to have outstanding yield. More native sources of resistance have been identified in the Eastern US. I am beginning to focus more heavily on native resistance than we have in the past, with the hope that such sources of resistance may be more likely to have less genetic "drag" for yield. Several varieties have been developed by other breeders in the Eastern soft wheat region that have native sources of resistance, and several efforts are underway to map OTL from these sources. Thus, I anticipate that we will also be able to use MAS on progeny of crosses with several native sources of resistance in the near future. Once both sources (Asian and native) are identified, MAS can be used to help pyramid these QTI. for more effective resistance to FUB.

with PHS until later generations (Mark Sorrells, pers. comm.). However, with respect 10 phenotypic screening, in 2008 and 2009 we have been actively working to modify our phenotypic screening protocol so that it is more relevant. In 2008, we ran preliminary tests of sampling limes for PHS at physiological maturity vs. at harvest. In 2009, we conducted planned and opportunistic studies of PHS before and during the time of the PHS conditions in Michigan, respectively. In these studies we examined tile association of falling number and alpha amylase (planned study) as well as visual sprouting and falling number (opportunistic study).

Student Research: It is my philosophy that the research being conducted in the program should speed our progress towards the development of improved wheat varieties. I have recruited three graduate students - Swasti Mishra, Yuanjie Su and Neil Yu. Swasti Mishra is working on FHB and is focusing on the genetics of resistance to toxin accumulation in the bran. She has completed one cycle of greenhouse testing as well as one cycle of field testing in two locations. She will repeat her field testing in two locations next year as well. Within her work to examine toxin accumulation in the bran, she has also successfully adapted an inoculation method that is effective in the field without the use a misting system (which we use in our large FHB screening trial). She has compiled some of her data, and is analyzing these data this fall. Yuanjie Su (a Monsanto Fellow who completed his M.S. at North Dakota State University) and Neil Yu are both working on PHS. Neil Yu's initial experiment will be to characterize Michigan germplasm for the accumulation of alpha amylase (an enzyme closely associated with PHS) during the natural maturation of the seed. As a small component of his PhD work, Yuanjie Su will expand the work being conducted by Neil to also look at the association of visual sprouting symptoms with alpha amylase and falling number. For all projects (FHI3 and PHS), future research will incorporate methods such as QTL mapping, transformation, and genomics. I have been gathering resources (both germplasm and human networking) for such studies. This fall we are receiving a red x white wheat mapping population from Jamie Shennan (Montana State University) that has been genotyped. This population will be useful for both FHB and PHS studies, as red and white wheat behave differently for both traits. In addition, we have received lines of Brachypodium dislacliyol1 from David Garvin, USDA-ARS at the University of Minnesota. Sam Hazen, (University of MassaChusetts, and a fanner PhD student of the MSU Wheat Breeding Program), has also expressed interest in collaborative work with MSU using B. distachyon. B. distachyon is closely related to wheat and is a good model system for functional genomics relevant to wheat. B. distachyon has a shorter generation time than wheat, has been sequenced, is being used to create several mapping populations, and has been effectively transformed using Agrobacterium. As the sequencing of wheat is still far off, I anticipate B. distachyol1 will be a useful tool for us to help us identify genes involved in PHS and FHB, and so use this knowledge to help us select and potentially modify wheat. Other genomic resources, such as 454 sequencing, are available on campus and I am considering the possibility of doing research on transcriptomics related to PHS and FHB.

Outreach/Extension: Outreach/extension opportunities are critical for me to stay in touch with the practical problems being faced in Michigan and remain relevant. I have spoken at several extension meetings in Michigan in 2008 and 200Y, where the subject of FHB was a major focus, and I was able to communicate with farmers about the risks of FHB as well as

the progress we are making at MSU to develop varieties. In addition, I have spoken regularly with Michigan companies regarding their concerns about FHB and their interest in related research. The PHS problems of 2008 and 2009 have brought an immediate focus on PHS in Michigan. I have been in frequent communication with researchers and industry to strategize ways to identify and develop PHS resistant varieties. In November, 2008, I spoke at a meeting between fanners, industry and researchers hosted by Michigan Farm Bureau. In June, 2009, I participated in a workshop, hosted at MSU and attended by industry and researchers, to discuss the [ailing number characteristic. In September, 2009, I presented at and facilitated a discussion on breeding for PHS in a meeting between researchers, industry and farmers.

Beyond Michigan: Beyond Michigan, I consider myself to have an important role in wheat breeding work regionally, and will continue to develop my role nationally and internationally. Regionally, I annually collaborate with numerous wheat breeders in the Eastern U.S.-sharing FHB nurseries for evaluation, sharing germplasm for breeding and yield trials, and collaborating on grant proposals. In 2008 I began to coordinate the Uniform Eastern Soft White Winter Wheat Nursery-a collaborative nursery that is evaluated by twelve cooperators (three of which are laboratories). Upon beginning coordination of this nursery, I expanded the nursery to included rust screening, and took the suggestion of a colleague to also consider Hessian f1y screening. In addition, approximately three other scientists/breeders joined the group to share and screen the best soft white wheat varieties. Such nurseries are essential to identify potential markets for new varieties, identify tire strengths and weaknesses of a line, and find new parents to cross with. Furthermore, MSU submits and receives entries for two regional FHB nurseries, as well as the Uniform Eastern Soft Red Winter Wheat Nursery. Nationally, I was invited to serve on a committee to help organize the National Wheat Genomics Conference in Indianapolis, 2008. I also annually participate in the National Fusarium Head Blight Forum, and in 2008 I participated in the 3rd International Fusarium Head Blight Symposium, Hungary. I collaborated on a Plant Breeding and Education grant (Jamie Shennan et al.) which will help coordinate the student training efforts of fifteen wheat breeders in the U.S. My interactions with Canada could be considered both regional and international. In 2008, I attended and presented in the first Great Lakes Wheat Workers meeting in London, Ontario. In 2009, I helped to host this meeting at MSU.

Teaching: Teaching is another important component of my position at MSU. My teaching involves both graduate student guidance and teaching CSS 350, Introduction to Plant Genetics (an undergraduate course, approximately 50 students per year). I am enthusiastic about my role as a graduate student advisor. As a research advisor/committee member I am eager to help students achieve success. I have been helping graduate student develop their research ideas and goals, as well as guide them towards taking appropriate courses. I am happy to make time to meet with graduate students to talk over various questions they are facing with their research, and help them think through these questions. Also, it is my personal goal as an advisor/mentor to help the students sec their work now and/or their future career in the context of the work of other scientists and the place their work has in benefitting society overall. I am serving as a committee member to four graduate students (one of which, Perry Ng would be happy for me to consider myself a "co-advisor") in

addition to being the advisor of three graduate students that I mentioned above.

I have taught Introduction to Plant Genetics (CSS 350) for two years (Spring 2008 and 2009. Many comments that I received from the 2008 teaching, as well as suggestions from other faculty (Karen Renner, Taylor Johnson) and a professional reviewer that I requested from MSU, have been effective in helping me to improve the course (as is ref1ected in the improvement in my SIRS scores an comments from the students). Changes that I think were especially helpful included the use of iClickers to engage students in questions during class, and emphasizing more plant examples in class (a request made by several students in 2008). A comment that I received from several students in 2009 that 1 will use in modifying the course in 2010 is to give even more weight to the homework assignments that was given in 2009 (which was an increase from 2008). In 2009, many students remarked that the homework assignments were especially helpful in their understanding of the material. In both 2008 and 2009 (though more in 2009) I incorporated many guest lecturers from scientists in CSS and related departments so that students could see the application of the genetics concepts beyond their textbook. I received very positive feedback both years about the guest lecturers, in general, and plan to continue incorporating guest lecturers in 2010. In addition, I am going to continue to search for examples that I can use outside of the PowerPoint presentation to help students approach the subject in new ways (physical models, viewing segregating plants themselves, etc.). Through the class I not only try to ensure that students understand the material well, but that they are improving their thinking skills towards genetic concepts. I want students to learn how to learn - how 10 ask and answer their own questions regarding genetics. I think this approach (helping them to work through the answers, rather than just giving them the answers) helps them to see that genetics is an approachable subject, and one they can truly begin to understand. One student, specifically, came to my office after the final exam in 2009 and expressed to me that although she had "learned" several of these topics before, this was the first time that she felt she had truly understood them.

Future: .Junior faculty are often advised to think of how they want to be "known" in the future. My ideas of the future have been growing and becoming clearer over the past two years. I can answer this question on several levels - 1) research topic, 2) research tools, 3) practical impact, 4) scientific community engagement. When I came to MSU, I was already becoming known on all international level as an FEB researcher. It is the area in which I did my PhD and two postdocs (one of which was at CIMMYT - the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, in Mexico). Thus, as FHB is a serious problem in Michigan and I am actively engaged in FHB research, I expect that I will be increasingly known for the work I am doing in FHB. As PHS is also a major problem in Michigan, and I am now beginning research projects in this area. I expect that I will also be known in the area of PHS. Research tools can span many research topics. I have always loved the phenotypic field aspect of breeding, and it is what I consider to be one of my strengths. In addition to this, MSU is an outstanding place for genetic/genomic research, and as molecular tools can greatly our ability to overcome FHB and PHS, I am eager to use these tools to our advantage. It seems that the research community already associates me, to a degree, with molecular abilities. Part of this may be because of my postdoc in Gary Muchlbauer' laboratory (University of Minnesota) where I worked in the area of transformation, and part

may be because of the mapping work I conducted in my PhD. In addition to being invited to help organize the National Wheat Genomics Conference in 2008 (mentioned above), I have been invited to be the presiding officer over the Wheat Coordinated Agricultural Project ASA-CSSA-SSA meeting session in October 2009. Beyond the specific research topics and tools, I want to be known for having a practical impact in Michigan. Thus, I want varieties that varieties that I develop to help meet the needs of the farmers and industry, and therefore be known for being a benefit to the wheat industry in Michigan. Beyond Michigan, I want to be known as a person who is actively engaged in the broader scientific community -one who is a useful collaborator and is happy to see a rising tide lift all the boats. I am eager for us to help each other achieve our goals and be a productive member of the scientific community.

References:

Hazel and Patel (2004) Influence of processing on trichothecene levels. Toxicology Letters 153:51-59.

Knott CA, Van Sanford DA, and Souza EJ (2008) Comparison of selection methods for the development of white-seeded lines from red x while soft winter wheat crosses. Crop Science 48: 1807-1816.

Lewis JL, Siler L, Jiang CL, Ward RW (2008) History of FHB Resistance Evaluation in Michigan State Performance Trial, Red vs. White. In: Canty SM, Clark A, Walton E, Ellis D, Mundell J, Van Sanford D (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Fusarium Head Blight Forum; 2008 Dec 2-4 Indianapolis, IN. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, p.174. Abstract and poster presentation.

Peterson, H.C., Knudson, W.A. Abate, G. (2006). The economic impact and potential of Michigan's Agri-food system. The Strategic Marketing Institute Working Paper, Department of Ag. Economics, Michigan State University.